"genocide-like activities" and political cowardice

[BornInMarch]

Genocide is defined at the killing off a large group of people, especially if the target is an ethnic, religious, or national group. As God made it so humans naturally value the lives of other humans and cringe at the thought of human life being destroyed, the organized murder of an entire race or group is considered the worst crime imaginable.

Yet when it actually happens, supposedly civilized societies are really good at finding ways to weasel out of helping.

When Serb Death Squads were committing the Bosnian Genocide, the U.S. waited for years before doing anything about it and the U.N. Peacekeepers sent to guard the safe zones abandoned the people of Srebrenica to certain doom because the alternative was fighting to defend them.

Later, when Rwanda was having it’s own Genocide, all the nations that could have intervened opted to stay out of it. The US President couldn’t even call it what it was.

Later still, there was debate about whether The US should invade Iraq or not. But all the debate was about whether or not this concerned the US; that Saddam Hussan was massacring innocent Kerds seemed to be an afterthought (and in fact still is).

This thread’s title comes from the fact that many politicians are too cowardly to even call it a genocide. During the Rwanda Genocide, President Clinton called the acts “genocide-like activities”. Despite his promises, President Obama has not called the Armenian Genocide a Genocide while in office.

How can we make our leaders stop acting like cowards?

 

[Murmurs]

How can we make our leaders stop acting like cowards?

By changing the nature of politics and/or international diplomacy. The reason for the reticence to call the genocide in Armenia, the Armenian Genocide, is because it was perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire, now Turkey. Which is in a tricksome relationship with Western countries thanks to its fairly abhorrent current leader - those same Western countries which need Turkey’s support to (in the long run; we’ve barely started yet) sort out other problems in the Middle East.

It’s not cowardice so much as realpolitik. I imagine what presidents Obama or Clinton (or anyone else) thinks about the genocide in private is rather more strident. But short answer is, using words like “genocide” doesn’t always serve our current national interests. For similar reasons, Saudi Arabia is rarely criticised by political leaders except in very vague ephemeral terms.

Basically, it’s not in our interests to p*ss particular people off too much at any given moment. You have to look at what calling this horrid spade a spade, would actually achieve.

Intervening to stop genocide from happening is a very different matter, and I am totally with you on that - but the answer is broadly the same: it’s very hard not to make things worse.

 

[Upgrade25]

Let us pray for our leaders to make the right descions and defend all life, born OR unborn.

 

[SMH_2015]

Basically, it’s not in our interests to p*ss particular people off too much at any given moment. **You have to look at what calling this horrid spade a spade, would actually achieve.
**
Intervening to stop genocide from happening is a very different matter, and I am totally with you on that - but the answer is broadly the same: it’s very hard not to make things worse.

With all due respect, NOT calling a spade a spade IS cowardice. Truth is Truth, no matter how the chips fall. It disappoints me beyond measure that the Church remains so quiet about the Christian genocide, since our government can’t muster the courage to speak the words.

 

[Bonnie]

Later, when Rwanda was having it’s own Genocide, all the nations that could have intervened opted to stay out of it. The US President couldn’t even call it what it was…How can we make our leaders stop acting like cowards?

I remember someone at the time commenting that Rwanda had no oil. Not a lack of courage, but a lack of economic incentive.

 

[Murmurs]

With all due respect, NOT calling a spade a spade IS cowardice. Truth is Truth, no matter how the chips fall. It disappoints me beyond measure that the Church remains so quiet about the Christian genocide, since our government can’t muster the courage to speak the words.

Well I only half disagree. The Truth is the Truth regardless of whether or not it’s spoken about, and sometimes more can be achieved by not talking about the Truth all at once. I think the Church is absolutely in a position to be far less reticent.

This is because while internal Vatican politics is labyrinthine and fascinating, it’s not a political entity in the same way as the US or UK or Canada is. In international diplomacy you can’t insult (in their eyes) edgy people whose help you think you need, and then expect useful co-operation.

It’s not the same as, for instance, calling Putin out over Crimea or eastern Ukraine - Putin is a leader who is entirely at ease with himself and understands that Western condemnation is just a price that gets paid (and economic sanctions aside, it only makes him stronger anyway). And we can rely on Russia acting in tandem with the West (regards say ISIS) because their and our interests are closely enough aligned for that to work (they have different motivations of course, but that’s beside the point).

Given for better or worse we (“the West”) has calculated we need Turkey’s help, I think it’s naive to expect our political leaders to call them out on the atrocity it undoubtedly is.

Does the same apply with regards Rwanda? I’m not so sure. I think you have to take each case on its merits and while the Armenian genocide is a reasonable (if unhappy) act of political calculation, silence on Rwanda I would agree is cowardice. I think the default position has to be courageous and truthful, but that sometimes political realities might constitute such pressure that an overall better outcome can be achieved by keeping quiet.

In sum, it’s not always cowardice.

 

[Theo520]

How can we make our leaders stop acting like cowards?

You seem to be arguing that the US is actually the world’s parent and we are obligated to ‘fix’ every problem in the world. That analogy leads to failure, as so many past wars have proven.

A better analogy might be the US can act as a bouncer, we can step in and knock some heads, but we don’t know to make people nicer. We suck at nation building and can leave the place worse than it was before we intervened.

If you seriously want to intervene then the most productive option would be to allow assassinations of such despots. This would send a clear message that this behavior will not be tolerated. However such intervention raises a host of legal and moral problems, which is why we don’t do it anymore.

Catch 22

 

[BornInMarch]

You seem to be arguing that the US is actually the world’s parent and we are obligated to ‘fix’ every problem in the world. That analogy leads to failure, as so many past wars have proven.

A better analogy might be the US can act as a bouncer, we can step in and knock some heads, but we don’t know to make people nicer. We suck at nation building and can leave the place worse than it was before we intervened.

If you seriously want to intervene then the most productive option would be to allow assassinations of such despots. This would send a clear message that this behavior will not be tolerated. However such intervention raises a host of legal and moral problems, which is why we don’t do it anymore.

Catch 22

Intervention does not always mean marching in guns-a-blazing. There are peaceful ways to pressure or force despots out of power.

But even intervening clumsily is better than sitting back and declaring “Not my problen, you figure it out” like many nations have been doing for decades.

 

[Murmurs]

Intervention does not always mean marching in guns-a-blazing. There are peaceful ways to pressure or force despots out of power.

But even intervening clumsily is better than sitting back and declaring “Not my problen, you figure it out” like many nations have been doing for decades.

Intervening benignly but clumsily is definitely not better than sitting back sometimes! A badly-planned intervention is 9 times out of 10 going to make things worse. I need not mention what happened in Iraq just over a decade ago.

However, I think that exact experience has now made many nations wary of intervening again when they definitely could do some good.